Thursday, 4 September 2014

Frit Tories want May 2015 election postponed on a Yes vote ....

There is a core failure by Mr Carrell to understand the constitutional reality of a 'Yes vote' on the continuing legitimacy of the UK Parliament nor the Uk Parliament's inability to morph into a rUK Parliament with out a general election in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Treaty of Union is clear, the UK Parliament can have no role in any change or alteration to the Treaty of Union - that includes its termination - any changes or alterations can only be agreed between bodies representing the two original, sovereign, signatory parliaments.

It has been pointed out by constitutional experts at Oxford University that for a rUK Parliament to have legal and constitutional legitimacy under English Law and constitutional practice it is required to be voted for by its actual electorate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Taking the requirement of the Treaty of Union for negotiations between the original, sovereign, signatory parliaments and the need for rUK to have a legitimate parliament; the reality is Cameron will need to call an election to the rUK Parliament by November 2014 at the latest and will be unable to stall to May 2015 let alone any later.

This raises the spectre of UKIP in roads to Tory seats fueled by the 'subsidy junkie Scots' propaganda in England and the London media over the last two years.

What will happen once the EU cat is let out the bag that both Scotland and rUK will be treated as successor states to an existing EU member?

Worse - how loud will the howling and baying for blood be when the Tory right and UKIP register rUK will need to renegotiate its membership, losing MEPs, sinecures in Brussels, juicy commissioner posts, the infamous rebate prior to March 2016 and the termination of the Union - while Cameron will be further marginalised by the EU leaders, looking for pay back, than he is at present?

Double whammy - Cameron loses Scotland in September and then Westminster in November.

Wonder if Ed Miliband and Labour would be that keen to win the upcoming rUK election and its accompanying sack of weasels?


  1. There is room for a great deal of speculation about the aftermath of a Yes vote, because the Westminster government have given no indication of what their plans are, if any. I am not convinced that there will be an early election; Cameron cannot simply call one thanks to his own Fixed Term Parliaments Act. In the midst of recriminations about who is responsible for the 'loss' of Scotland, will Labour and the Tories cooperate to give the two-thirds vote needed to authorise an early election? Perhaps they could rush through emergency legislation creating an rUK Parliament, consisting of all MPs except those representing Scottish constituencies, for the purpose of independence negotiations.

    I suspect that they will just muddle along with little respect for the requirements of the Treaty of Union - nothing new there. Why should Westminster care about legal technicalities relating to an ancient treaty when they were perfectly willing to involve the UK in an illegal invasion?

    As for the Tory Europhobes and UKIP, perhaps they will be secretly delighted if the rUK is faced with negotiating new terms for its membership of the EU and losing its fabled rebate, as this would likely lead to a rapid exit of the rUK from the EU.

  2. Les - I can only report on the constitutional opinion of the validity of a 'doing nothing' muddle through by Westminster. The problems will start when someone asks the legitimate constitutional and legal question - just who is the Prime Minister of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and by what authority?

    The answer is: there is not one as no one has been elected as rUK Prime Minister and government as the UK Parliament remains (in principle) at Westminster until March 2016 and is ended on termination of the Treaty of Union.

    Cameron is only the elected Prime Minister of the UK, where is his electoral mandate from the rUK to assume the role as prime minister of the rUK Parliament - he barely scraped in as UK Prime minister?

    Like much else to do with the failure to plan for a Yes vote in the English Establishment this is just another glaring hole yet to be dealt with.

    Without a legitimate rUK Parliament, how can the Queen of England sign off on any bills of the rUK Parliament such as the repeal of that parliament's predecessor's Act of Union Bill of 1706?

    This is not some esoteric argument because the failure of the rUK to resolve this issue and create a legitimate parliament for rUK has serious consequences not just around independence negotiations but for the rUK in its dealings with the EU and other international bodies for whom at least a 'fig leaf' of constitutional and legal legitimacy is required.

  3. "The problems will start when someone asks the legitimate constitutional and legal question - just who is the Prime Minister of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and by what authority?" Indeed, and probably there will be someone with vested interests to defend and lots of money to pay for lawyers to ask that question in a court of law.

    If the Westminster lot were sensible people, they should have had a good think about the constitutional issues which will arise in the event of a Yes vote. Perhaps they should have passed legislation, to be activated by a Yes vote, to ensure that whoever negotiates on behalf of the rUK has the authority to do so. (Perhaps, if they were as sensible as that, there would be less need for Scottish independence.) But whether it is because they were too confident that Scotland would vote No, or because they are too used to operating within the weak restraints of an uncodified constitution, or because they are just a bunch of arrogant idiots, they have done no such thing. Their Plan A has been to get a No vote; if they have a Plan B, they have kept very quiet about it - except when threatening border posts and no currency union.

    I wonder if things are perhaps a bit more complicated. The Treaty of Union was signed by the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England, which I believe legally included Wales at that time. Is Northern Ireland really entitled to be part of the rUK negotiating team? I guess it probably is, but I am not entirely sure.

    I do not think Cameron's authority as Prime Minister of the rUK is a problem; if Scotland had been excluded from the 2010 general election, the Tories would have had an overall majority. The potential for a major problem arises if the 2015 election goes ahead under the present system and Labour win a narrow majority across the whole of the UK - but not in the rUK.

    What Westminster should do and what Westminster will do are likely to be quite different. Perhaps their secret Plan B, if there is a Yes vote, is to manufacture an excuse to renege on the Edinburgh Agreement. I hope not, but I deeply distrust Westminster and the British Establishment.